text:
The Twentieth Century Motor Company of Starnesville, Wisconsin (fl. ca. 1985-2015), was a fictional business firm in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Specifically, this company built automobile engines for about thirty years until finally it went bankrupt and was liquidated. Furthermore, the original workforce, after noticing that the decay in the economy of the entire United States dated from their original vote for a disastrous business plan, coined an expression, in the form of a question, expressing hopelessness and despair. That question was,
" | Who is John Galt? | " |
Gerald "Jed" Starnes founded the Twentieth Century in or about 1985. In addition to building a factory, he had an entire town built to house his six-thousand-member workforce. Among its customers was Henry Rearden, when Rearden had only an ore mine to his name. Rearden would place his order in 2001.
Jed Starnes' workforce included a skilled lathe operator named Jeff Allen, who worked at the firm since 1991 and became shop foreman, and at least two engineers. William Hastings (fl. 1989-2007) was the senior of the two; the other was John Galt (fl. 2004-2007), a young graduate of Patrick Henry University in Cleveland, Ohio, who had majored in physics and philosophy. John Galt built a prototype of the invention that would make him famous, though not in the usual manner: an electrostatic motor that could draw its energy from the atmosphere and run virtually without stopping or refueling.
Change One Cannot Believe In
In 2007, Gerald Starnes died, leaving three children: Gerald Starnes, Jr., his younger brother Eric, and their sister Ivy. Together they proposed a radically new business plan: they would have all the employees work according to their ability, and "pay" them according to their needs.
The Starnes children put the matter to a vote of the entire workforce, and the workforce, for reasons that never became clear, voted in favor. Shop foreman Jeff Allen would later describe the attitude of the workforce as of someone spoiling for a fistfight. Gerald Jr. made a hasty speech telling all the workers that they "may [not] leave" because they were all "bound by the moral code that we all accept." But John Galt stood up and declared that he did not accept that code, and furthermore, he would put an end to that moral code once for all—by "stop[ping] the motor of the world." Not until twelve years later would anyone present realize what he meant.
Decline and First Bankruptcy
The Twentieth Century began four years of decline, as the "noble plan" pitted the workers against one another and fostered resentment instead of the hoped-for cooperation. Alcoholism and crime became rampant. Jeff Allen would later state that the only ones who profited from this arrangement were the Starnes children:
- Eric Starnes, the Director of Public Relations, sought love, and tried to obtain it by reminding everyone how "democratic" he and his brother and sister had been in "giving" the factory to the workers. The workers regarded him with scorn instead.
- Gerald Starnes, Jr., the Director of Production, effectively stole vast amounts of money from the firm and pretended that his ostentatious show of material wealth was necessary as an advertisement for the company. He earned the hatred of the workforce.
- Ivy Starnes, the Director of Distribution, sought power instead of material wealth. She dressed in the severe fashion and "sensible shoes" of an early twentieth century schoolmistress, and treated the workers as though they were wayward and disobedient children. She it was who decided what everyone's "needs" were, and whether they deserved to be met. She became the most-feared person at the company.
While all this was happening, the quality of the company's products deteriorated to unsaleability. After four years, the factory closed. Ivy Starnes made a resentful speech decrying the refusal of the larger society to embrace a factory with such an "enlightened" work ethic. In response, one worker, who had found himself forced to work overtime after coming up with an idea to improve efficiency, walked up to her and spat in her face. Thus the first chapter in the history of the Twentieth Century Motor Company ended.
Lee Hunsacker
Lee Hunsacker, another businessman who had never been successful at anything before, assembled a team of equally feckless partners who called themselves the Amalgamated Service Company. They bought the Twentieth Century in 2011 after securing a capital loan from the nearby Community National Bank, presided over by Eugene Lawson. (He had earlier tried to get a loan from Midas Mulligan, but, though he had obtained a court injunction to compel Mulligan to lend him the money, Mulligan had responded by liquidating his bank and vanishing.) Hunsacker spent most of his remaining money buying luxurious appointments for his executive offices. After that, one fact became painfully obvious to everyone: he didn't know what to do. When in 2015 Nielsen Motors (Colorado) came out with a motor, similar to the Twentieth Century's signature product, but at half the price, the Twentieth Century folded.
That failure had an even larger consequence, because the Community National Bank failed completely, and many residents of Starnesville and the nearby town of Rome, Wisconsin, lost all their money.
Final dispositions
The factory property
The Mayor of Rome, a man named Bascom, bought the Twentieth Century property, appropriated a mahogany desk and stall shower for himself, and sold off its fixtures. (Bascom assumed incorrectly that Jed Starnes had had these appointments in his office; Hunsacker had actually bought them.)
Bascom then sold the factory, now an empty shell, to Mark Yonts. Yonts formed a company called the People's Mortgage Company. He re-sold the Twentieth Century to one set of investors, and also pledged it as security for a loan to an unsuspecting bank. Then he vanished before anyone suspected that he had wrongfully sold an encumbered building.
The factory building was still standing when Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden visited Starnesville on a driving trip. (The two sets of owners were fighting over their stake in court, though none of the locals could figure out why they did not call it a day and walk away.) There Dagny discovered John Galt's original prototype, or rather what was left of it; John Galt had wrecked it so that neither the Starnes heirs nor anyone else would have use of his invention. Neither Hunsacker, nor Bascom, nor Yonts took any notice of it.
The Starnes heirs
The Starnes heirs relocated to Durance, Louisiana. In 2013 Eric Starnes became infatuated with a young woman who did not return his feelings, and then committed suicide by slashing his own throat in the bedroom of her house, on the occasion of her returning, with her new husband, from their honeymoon.
Gerald Starnes drifted into a life of petty, and then grand, theft and landed in jail. Dagny Taggart would find him there in 2017.
Ivy Starnes became a social worker and lost touch with her brother.
Hunsacker and Lawrence
Lee Hunsacker, when last seen by anyone, became the live-in cook and not-so-handyman for a couple of moderate means in Oregon, in exchange for room and board. Dagny Taggart tracked him down there and from him got the lead on the Starnes heirs.
Eugene Lawson won a key appointment in the administration of Mr. Thompson.
Remainder of the workforce
William Hastings left the Twentieth Century almost as quickly as John Galt did, when the Starnes children were in charge. He went to work for another factory, but John Galt would later (2008) convince him to retire and live off his savings. He lived on for four more years and died peacefully at home, of heart disease.
John Galt, of course, made good on his threat to "stop the motor of the world." William Hastings was his fourth recruit.
The six-thousand-strong workforce of the Twentieth Century Motor Company noticed that not only was their own firm declining, but the entire country was declining. They didn't know exactly how this was happening, but they all felt that they knew why. None of them had known anything more about John Galt than his name, but all knew that the decline at their factory and in the nation's economy began when he abruptly left and made that cryptic threat. And so they all began to ask themselves, "Who is John Galt?" in an effort to explain something that was as inexplicable as it was inexorable. Eventually, all of the American public followed their example.
Jeff Allen
Shop foreman Jeff Allen left Starnesville after the initial bankruptcy and drifted across the country, looking for work where he could find it. Usually his jobs would not survive the next round of layoffs, which always proceeded according to seniority, a thing he could not hope to gain. Allen worked the longest for Lawrence Hammond's automobile factory in Colorado, where all hiring decisions were taken according to a man's work record—but then Lawrence Hammond quit, and the citizens' committee that took the Hammond Car Company over, laid him off at once, again on account of his lack of seniority. He met Dagny Taggart while stowing away on the Taggart Comet, and told her the full particulars of the disastrous administration of the Twentieth Century by the Starnes heirs, and the origin of the John Galt Question. The novel last mentions him taking command of the Comet as "deputy conductor and proxy-vice-president for operations" when the Comet became a "frozen train." That was on May 30, 2019. A few days later, he signed on permanently with the railroad at Laurel, KS. But he almost certainly heard John Galt's great speech, recognized him, and found vindication of his own bitter memories in John Galt's story. And thus when John Galt told people to "stop supporting [their] own destroyers," Jeff Allen would be the first to sign up for a hastily-organized militia.
Spoilers end here.
The Twentieth Century Motor Company was a microcosm of any society that tried to organize itself under the principles set forth in The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Ayn Rand used this firm for two purposes: to demonstrate the utter unworkability and monumental injustice of life under Communism or any other form of collectivism, and to serve as a plot device to explain the origin of her chief anti-villain, John Galt.
The symptoms of the decline illustrated all the ills that Communism brings to any society that adopts its precepts: resentment of anything (like the birth of another child) that augments another's "needs," a tendency to hide one's ability because it is worse than unappreciated, a tendency by authorities to decide people's needs arbitrarily (on account of a lack of any objective standard for judging need or ability), and an overall decline in productivity and quality because the society rewards laziness and punishes good work.


text:
DETROIT (AP) — Chrysler's U.S. sales rose almost 12 percent last month as the company reported its best September in five years.
The increase from a year earlier was fueled by new models, low interest rates and a stable U.S. economy, the company said. Its sales chief predicted that September sales for the industry would reach an annual rate of 14.9 million, making it the best month since March of 2008. Car companies report sales throughout the day on Tuesday.
Volkswagen also reported a large sales increase, up 34 percent from a year earlier. VW has posted big gains all year, and last month's rise was led by the Passat midsize car, which almost tripled sales.
The companies' numbers show that Americans continued to buy new cars and trucks at a strong pace this year, making auto sales a steady bright spot in a cloudy economy. Cheap loans and leases, aging cars that need replacing, and a new lineup of fuel-efficient midsize sedans are drawing shoppers to dealerships.
"We remain optimistic about the health of the U.S. new vehicle sales industry and our position in it," said Reid Bigland, Chrysler's head of U.S. sales.
Most analysts are slightly more conservative than Chrysler in their predictions for September. Still, U.S. sales could rise by more than 1.1 million vehicles, up 11 percent from last year, for an annual rate of about 14.5 million.
Sales would be even stronger were it not for uncertainty about the broader economy. Some people are holding back on major purchases until they see how the budget battle shakes out in Washington, whether Europe can fix its economy and who wins the U.S. presidential election, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting for LMC Automotive, an industry consulting firm.
Schuster expects September sales at an annual rate of 14.5 million, perhaps more if automakers finished the month stronger than expected. Bargain interest rates are largely fueling sales, he said. Some banks and credit unions offer 2 percent financing to people with good credit. That's almost as good as subsidized loans from the automakers' finance companies.
"Not only is it cheap, it's relatively available," Schuster said. "There's no question that's driving buyers."
Also, used-car values have remained high due to tight supplies and strong demand, and that means dealers are paying more for trade-ins.
And there are a bunch of new models coming out, especially in the midsize car category, the most popular segment of the U.S. market. Honda's new Accord and a new Ford Fusion are just hitting showrooms, as is a revamped Chevrolet Malibu. The redesigned Nissan Altima is selling well. A new Toyota Camry, the top-selling car in America, has been in showrooms for only a year.
The new models have ready buyers. People are replacing aging cars they held onto during the 2007-2009 recession, and that's been helping sales all year. The average age of cars and trucks on U.S. roads is near 11 years.
A midsize sedan led Chrysler's September sales. Sales of Dodge Avenger jumped 89 percent from a year earlier, helping lift the company's overall U.S. sales to 142,000 vehicles last month. The Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV also notched a strong month with sales up 19 percent. But the company's best-selling vehicle, the Ram pickup, posted only a 6 percent increase following a stronger August.
One thing that will be absent from September sales is big discounts from automakers. The average incentive for the month was $2,468, down almost 7 percent from September of last year, according to the TrueCar.com auto pricing site.
Even with uncertainty, there's enough good economic news to help sales, which could reach an annual rate of 15 million this month, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas.
Consumer confidence, one of the biggest factors influencing car-buying, jumped in September to the highest level since February. It was bolstered by a brighter outlook for overall business conditions and hiring.
Checks with dealers found higher floor traffic in mid-month "driven by aggressive lending and marketing activity, particularly for trucks," Jonas wrote in a note to investors.
Sales of 15 million would still fall short of the recent peak of around 17 million in 2005. They bottomed at a 30-year low of 10.4 million during the recession in 2009.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Don't Let Mortgage Servicer Give You Runaround
Homeowners struggle to resolve problems with the companies that collect their mortgage payments every month, despite new regulations to protect consumers.
But homeowners who know their rights tend to get their lenders' attention. They get their mortgage problems resolved quicker -- even if that takes filing a complaint.
Whether you are trying to get a loan modification or working to solve payment or insurance issues with your mortgage servicer, speak up to avoid the runaround from your servicer.
What borrowers complain about
Borrowers filed almost 94,000 mortgage-related complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from December 2011 through February 2014.
Types of mortgage complaints to CFPB
More than half the complaints concerned loan modifications, foreclosures and collection of past-due debts. The next biggest type of complaint concerned loan servicing, payments and problems with escrow payments of insurance, taxes and other costs.
Servicers must act quickly
Servicers are required to address a borrower's concerns within 30 days after the borrower contacts the lender, says Rebecca Walzak, president and CEO of rjbWalzak Consulting. She specializes in loan quality assurance and risk management.
"Within 30 days of talking to them, there should be some kind of resolution (or response) to the problem," Walzak says. "If there isn't, they have violated federal law and you should report that to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
CFPB complaints get noticed
When you file a complaint with the CFPB, the agency reviews the file and sends it to the mortgage servicer through an electronic portal. The servicer has to reply to the complaint through the portal by a deadline. The CFPB monitors the servicer's answer and if you are not satisfied with the resolution, you can respond and the servicer knows that the CFPB will have access to that answer.
This doesn't guarantee your problem will be solved in 30 days, but it will definitely get the lender to pay some special attention to your case.
"Closed" but disputed complaints
Not everyone is satisfied
Consumers disputed about one-quarter of the mortgage-related CFPB complaints that the servicers deemed "closed."
Don't give up if single point of contact fails
The CFPB requires servicers to provide borrowers with a "single point of contact," ideally, a representative who will be assigned to the borrower's file and will have access to the information throughout the process.
That doesn't necessarily mean you end up talking to the same person every time you call, Walzak says.
Regardless, the representative you will speak to generally is there to collect information and doesn't necessarily have the authority to make decisions, says Howard Ullman, an attorney and owner at Family Counseling Law Firm in Deerfield Beach, Fla.
Sometimes your single-point-of-contact representative is in a call center in India where representatives read from a script, says Ullman, who often represents clients trying to get loan modifications.
"While the representatives in India are extremely polite and courteous, there is a departure from our idioms and language and the minute some issue comes up that is off of their script, they are lost."
-- Attorney Howard Ullman
Get to the person in charge
One way to cut to the chase when you feel your servicer isn't doing its job right is to escalate your problem. To do so:
- Ask for a manager.
- If the manager doesn't get the job done, ask for the manager's manager.
- And so on, all the way up to company director, if possible. "Sometimes you have to find out the corporate structure and keep pursuing it until you get answers," Ullman says.
Keep scaling to new heights
Ullman says he recently wrote an email to all the board of directors of the servicing company in charge of his client's loan. The battle with the servicer revolved around a short sale dispute.
A buyer had signed a contract to buy the house in a short sale. At the same time, the servicer had hired an auction company. Then that auction company asked the homeowner to sign a contract to sell the house for $206,000 less than the purchase contract he had in hand.
"I refused to allow my client to sign the contract that the auction company presented, as that could ultimately affect my client," he says.
More ways to complain
Amy Cordwell, a homeownership adviser in New Hampshire, says she also has escalated cases for the homeowners she represents and found it effective.
If your mortgage servicer is a bank, filing a complaint with your state's banking commission or the attorney general's office can also work. "We have used our banking commission here quite a bit," Cordwell says.
And if your frustration with your mortgage servicer gets to a point where you don't know what else to do, maybe it's time to let your senator or state representative know.
Walzak says at the height of the foreclosure crisis she used to help a congressman work through some of the mortgage issues for many of the people who called his office to complain.
Get a free HUD counselor
Often, your representative will forward your case to a counselor approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Work with a HUD-approved counseling agency as early as possible if you face foreclosure or need a loan modification, Cordwell says. The service is free, and it saves time and energy.
"We seem to have a little more pull there," she says.
Copyright 2014, Bankrate Inc.


text:
Graduate Management Trainee - Crawley / Gatwick
Your growth. Make it part of ours.
As fast-track routes to management go, few can be faster than our award-winning Graduate Management Training Programme. Through hands-on experience and excellent training, our Management Trainees can progress to Branch Manager in as little as two years.
Our opportunities
After a classroom-based orientation session, you'll be based in one of our branches, gaining hands-on experience of our operation and learning the many valuable skills you'll need to manage a business. Everything from sales, marketing and account management to coaching, mentoring and leadership skills.
The initial training takes around 8 to 12 months, after which you should be ready to move into your next role. We offer endless opportunities for career progression, not just across the UK but internationally too.
Whatever you do, we'll make sure your efforts are always recognised. As you drive your career forward, you'll benefit from excellent salary progression, as well as generous bonuses.
Your talent
We look for people who are driven by results, as well as the ability to engage with customers and finding new, creative ways to exceed their expectations.
Teamwork is a big part of life here, so you must be someone who loves taking a collaborative approach and who can recognise and acknowledge the contribution of others. You'll also be able to motivate and inspire the people around you by bringing enthusiasm and positivity to everything you do.
Our future together
Enterprise started life as a small business. Now it's one of the largest "small" businesses in the world, with 10,000+ branches globally, an annual turnover of more than $23.9 billion and the biggest rental car fleet on the planet. Join the team and you can be one of the people driving this success, as you explore new challenges, new opportunities and new directions – and help us do the same.
Apply now by clicking here, or using the button below.
Enterprise Mobility
Imagine the possibilities that come with joining a huge, internationally successful business with the type of personal, entrepreneurial approach which allows individuals to stand out.


text:
Barack Obama was sworn in as our first foreign-born Muslim President one year ago today. He gave a pretty nice speech that everyone has already forgotten. It is too bad he was already a huge failure, one week in!
Before he was inaugurated he said a lot of things about bipartisanship and "changing the tone" in Washington that no one really believed and some stuff like "closing Guantanamo" and "ending Don't Ask Don't Tell" that, weirdly, people did believe. (And, to be fair, he attempted to do one of those things but was stymied by the Republican Superminority. The other thing he still promises to do. Eventually. Arguably he could've "sold" the first thing better but people who constantly make that argument about how a thing should've been "sold" after the fact should always be considered suspect.)
His "Bush Tax Cut" (which was passed through this crazy thing called reconciliation, where you only need 51 votes) was the stimulus, which was not as sexy as a tax cut. (His 9/11 was apparently a guy who failed to detonate some explosives in his underpants who was then promptly caught and arrested and is awaiting trial.) But the stimulus was another thing, too: a legislative victory that led to the very first examples of concern trolls bemoaning how Liberal and Bad this president was!
On January 20 of 2009, Peggy Noonan thought Barack Obama was very nice. His speech was "serious and solid" and "moderate" and "sober." A week later Peggy was upset that the stimulus passed without any Republican votes, and she said, "most everyone knows it isn't a good bill." In reality, a slim majority of Americans supported the bill. And it "wasn't a good bill" because it was watered down to attract Republican support. But Republican support never materialized because it is makes no political sense for them to support anything Barack Obama does. Also this was the blueprint for the entire first year basically, wasn't it?
Now, one year later, Peggy wrote essentially the exact same column as that January 2009 one. This time it is not about "stimulus." It is about health care. Once again, a moderate bill full of compromises to positions formerly held by Republicans has been tarred as a far-left boondoggle and the GOP opposition to the bill is sort of acknowledged to be inevitable political grandstanding but generally explained as if it was a matter of principle.
And, last Friday, Peggy wrote a column about how Obama is "disconnected" from the American people, because he focuses on health care while people are worried a) about jobs and b) about government spending. The president is no longer as sober and serious and moderate as he was a year ago. How sad.
Shortly before Barack Obama's inauguration, David Brooks was blessing the incoming president as the end of identity politics and claiming he would attempt to fundamentally restore balance to the American government. A week later he was complaining about the stimulus. Today he says it is time to abandon health care altogether. Obama is too pragmatic! Attempting to do things about the things that are wrong with the nation? Ugh! No one wants that! The David Brooks who, a year ago, said the nation needed responsible, serious decisions and a renewed commitment to making tough sacrifices and blah blah reasonable Republican blah, this David Brooks now says that Obama should not have done anything about "finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education" because sometimes his actions poll poorly.
(Maureen Dowd's column today is about Gavin Newsom, for some reason?)
Anyway! Here is Obama's first year Report Card, from us: on every major issue he should've started from a position further to "the left" (or "the way people who pay attention to policy instead of politics agree would be the better, more effective way to do things") so that the eventual caving to "political realities" would've been slightly less painful, and we would've ended up with marginally better bills and probably the exact same complaints of over-reach and "socialism" (and probably the same complaints of being a spineless sell-out from The Left). Also he should fire Geithner but he can't do that because he would never be able to get Geithner's replacement confirmed, no matter who the replacement is. Also Max Baucus basically destroyed Obama's first year single-handedly, we hope that dude is proud of himself and his boyfriend Chuck Grassley.


text:
Recovery Central
The shot that set Phil up for the winning putt will be talked about for a long time to come.
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- Another memorable shot, and another victory, for Phil Mickelson's impressive ledger.
Not the 9-foot birdie putt on the final hole that gave him a one-stroke victory at the Crowne Plaza Invitational on Sunday. Instead, it was the 140-yard wedge from heavy rough that set it up: when Mickelson had to hit under one tree and over another, the ball clipping branches while headed sky-high.
"Just lucky," Mickelson said, with a smile. "I'm as surprised as anybody I was able to make a 3 from over there."
Once Mickelson hit the ball -- "it just came off perfectly," he said -- he couldn't see it through the branches. So he took a couple of steps before jogging through the trees into an opening just in time to see the ball fall back to earth near the flag.
One of Mickelson's best shots ever?
"Probably top five," Lefty responded, pointing out that he had already discussed that with his wife, Amy.
"That's what No. 2s in the world do," said Rod Pampling, who blew a two-stroke lead on the back nine. "Those guys make those kinds of shots."
The birdie closed out a round of 2-under 68 that got Mickelson to 14-under 266, a stroke better than Pampling (68) and Tim Clark (66) for his second victory at Colonial.
It was the 34th career victory for Mickelson, who also won the Northern Trust Open in February and is the only person on the PGA Tour with multiple victories in each of the past five seasons.
Mickelson began the final round with a one-stroke lead. But like the day before, he fell behind before regaining the lead on his final putt of the day.
Pampling, playing with Mickelson, made the turn at 14 under. He still led by one after saving par out of a greenside bunker at the 188-yard 16th.
But on the ensuing drive at the 382-yard 17th, Pampling hit the ball way right toward a ditch. He had to take a penalty stroke after a drop -- though that put his ball where it could be seen rather than buried in heavy rough at the edge of a concrete gully. He managed to get the approach shot into a bunker, then blasted to 4 feet, pushing both arms in the air before tapping in the bogey. That came after Mickelson had two-putted from 28 feet for par.
After Mickelson's final drive went well left, Pampling drove down the middle of the fairway. But Pampling left his approach 38 feet away, his second putt going in after Mickelson had already made his birdie.
"Came close again at the end," said Pampling, who finished third at Colonial two years after a double bogey at No. 15. "I hope next time, I'll be good to go."
Pampling still may have done enough to get into the top 50 for a spot in the U.S. Open.
Clark had birdies at Nos. 16 and 17 to get to 13 under and tie for the lead.
Pampling hit his tee shot at 16 into the right greenside bunker, and blasted within 9 feet. After Mickelson made par, Pampling took extra time to examine his line and then saved par, pumping his right fist hard in the air as the ball dropped into the hole.
"At times I got nervy, I was trying to relax, do breathing and focused what I have to do. I was fine out there," Pampling said. "It was bad swing on 17. It was the only one I was disappointed in."
As Mickleson and Pampling were finishing No. 17, Clark's 14-foot birdie chance at the closing hole curled just short. He finished second for the sixth time in his career, still without a victory.
"I wasn't trying to force anything. I was playing the course the way I did the first few days," Clark said. "I made some good shots coming in and made a few putts. It was disappointing I left 18 short."
Stephen Ames (70) finished fourth at 269, a stroke ahead of Ben Crane (67).
Mickelson earned $1.098 million, nearly double the $594,000 check he got for winning the last Colonial eight years ago, and surpassed $49 million in career earnings. He is the 11th player to win multiple times at Hogan's Alley, where five-time champion Ben Hogan is the only golfer to win more than twice.
Mickelson was back within a stroke after getting on the green at the 611-yard 11th in two, then two-putting from 33 feet. Pampling, the Australian native who lives in nearby Flower Mound and gets to play Colonial often, hit his first two shots there out of the rough before a 13-foot birdie chance stopped right by the hole.
But they kept matching pars after that -- until the final two holes.
When Mickelson got to the 6th tee in front of the huge scoreboard Sunday, he still had a one-stroke lead over Pampling. That was the spot the day before when Mickelson realized he had dropped out of the lead and three strokes behind Pampling, who was in a different group then.
But Mickelson didn't hold his lead much longer.
After driving into the right rough at the 394-yard hole, Mickelson's shot from there hit a tree branch and ricocheted left into the fairway, though he managed to save par after hitting the third shot within 3½ feet. But Pampling got even with a 48-foot birdie putt off the fringe, after coming out of his stance once and turning around to ask a spectator to turn off their phone.
Then at No. 7, Pampling outdrove Mickelson by 60 yards and made a 7-foot birdie putt to get to 13 under, a stroke ahead.
Pampling made it a two-stroke lead after his approach at No. 9 was within 4 feet for another birdie. Mickelson's 16-foot attempt slid right of the hole.
"He looked like he was in control," Mickelson said. "I was obviously very fortunate to come out on top."
Divots:@ Mickelson is the seventh Colonial winner who had at least a share of the 54-hole lead. ... Geoff Ogilvy, the No. 7-ranked player, followed an opening 72 with three subpar rounds and finished tied for seventh at 273. Ogilvy and Mickelson were the only of the five top-10 players in the field to make the cut.


text:
Dill maintained a beautiful home in East Orange, New Jersey. "Upon being consulted by the governor of
He crowed about his financial success. "Law is a business," he told the Law Student's Helper in 1900, "and if a young man wants to practice it, the sooner he makes up his mind to do so with an eye single to some particular branch of it, the better lawyer he will become.... Some years ago I wanted to practice [corporation] law. My two partners would not consent. We separated. They are doing a business of about $6,000 per year each, while I am doing ten times as much or more."
Dill explained his approach to the practice of law in the Albany Law Journal in 1903:
The man essaying to be a successful corporation lawyer, whose ability was limited to telling people what they could not do, he said, would find himself a failure; the successful corporation lawyer must not be a negative man, but a positive and affirmative man, not only showing the way to accomplish a business purpose, but often leading the way."While [his] straightforward lopping off of professional scruples may have allowed Dill to rise more easily in the business world," wrote the historian Samuel Haber, "it cut him off from a good part of the legal profession. Despite his celebrity and financial success, he was never elected to a position of honor or authority in a professional association." The slight did not seem to trouble Dill, however, who dismissed the high-toned Association of the Bar of the City of


text:
Mario Papa /Giuliano Iantorno
Famous British & American Songs
and their cultural background
Longman Group Limited, London, 1979
This collection of well-known British and American songs is accompanied by notes dealing with difficu!t vocabulary in the songs ¬and relevant passages on many aspects of British and American, culture.
The passages can be used as supplementary reading material or to stimulate classroom discussion.
Suggestions on how teachers can best exploit the linguistic material contained in the songs are given in the Introduction and a Structural Index listing the most important structures in the songs is also provided.
A C60 cassette containing recordings of the songs accompanies the book.


text:
The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01), by Max Müller, [1879], at sacred-texts.com
1. On the second of these nectars the Rudras live, with Indra at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
2. They enter into that white colour, and they rise from that colour.
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Rudras, with Indra at their head, he sees the
nectar and rejoices. And he, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. So long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, twice as long does it rise in the south and set in the north; and so long does he follow the sovereign supremacy of the Rudras.


text:
FAR 103 | AC 103 | Preamble to 103 | FAR 91 for Ultralights
Adopted: July 30,1982 Effective: October 4,1982 (Published in 47 FR 38770, September 2,1982)
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. The rule defines ultralight vehicles in two categories: powered and unpowered. To be considered an ultralight vehicle, a hang glider must weigh less than 155 pounds; while a powered vehicle must weigh less than 254 pounds; is limited to 5 U.S. gallons of fuel; must have a maximum speed of not more than 55 knots; and must have a poweroff stall speed of no more than 24 knots. Both powered and unpowered ultralight vehicles are limited to a single occupant. Those vehicles which exceed the above criteria will be considered aircraft for purposes of airworthiness certification and registration, and their operators will be subject to the same certification requirements as are aircraft operators. These rules for ultralight vehicles are needed to achieve an acceptable level of air safety by reducing potential conflict with other airspace users and to provide protection to persons and property on the ground.
Editor: You'll see references to airspace that was reclassified in 1993. This chart may help understand the changes. Our current alphabet soup used to have different flavors.
The rule governs the operation of ultralight vehicles by specifying the airspace which requires prior authorization of Air Traffic Control (ATC), prohibiting operation over congested areas, and providing for operations during twilight hours with proper lighting. Right-of-way and minimum visibility rules are also established.
The FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehicle certification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative for the development of these important safety programs. The ultralight community is expected to take positive action to develop these programs in a timely manner and gain FAA approval for their implementation. Should this approach fail to meet FAA safety objectives, further regulatory action may be necessary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Peppard, Airspace and Air Traffic Rules Branch (AAT-220). Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone (202) 426-3128, or Gary Perkins, General Aviation Operations Branch (AFO-820) Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone (202) 426-8194.
The FAA issued Advisory Circular No. 60-10, entitled "Recommended Safety Parameters for Operation of Hang Gliders" on May 16, 1974. That advisory circular contained recommended safety parameters for the operation of sport hang gliders, in lieu of formal Federal regulation. The advisory circular defined "hang glider" as "an unpowered, single place vehicle whose launch and landing capability depends on the legs of the occupant and whose ability to remain in flight is generated by natural air currents only." The sport of hang gliding has advanced dramatically since Advisory Circular No. 60-10 was issued.
There is now widespread use of powerplants, landing gear, and movable control surfaces to increase the speed, altitude, and distance capabilities of the vehicles. Many models have passenger carrying capability. As a result of those developments, many hang gliding vehicles no longer fall within the scope envisioned by Advisory Circular No. 60-10.
The addition of powerplants and controllable aerodynamic surfaces has created vehicles which can approximate the operational capabilities of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. The increasing performance capabilities of these vehicles, and their greatly increased number, have created a potential hazard to other aircraft and operators, as well as to the ultralight operators themselves. As the result of aerodynamic improvements, many unpowered hang gliders are now capable of extended soaring to altitudes exceeding 10,000 feet above the point of launch and distances of over 100 miles. The powered hang gliders now have the capability of sustained flight above 10,000 feet and forward speed exceeding 50 knots.
The operations of these vehicles are now a significant factor in aviation safety. The vehicles are routinely operated, without authorization, into regulated airspace, such as airport traffic areas, terminal control areas, positive control areas, and prohibited and restricted areas. Many operations have also taken place over congested areas and spectators and into adverse weather conditions in which operations may be conducted by pilots and aircraft which are qualified for instrument flight (IFR conditions). The midair collision potential presented by unauthorized operations is contrary to the FAA responsibility of ensuring the safety of all airspace operations including air carrier aircraft.
To illustrate the potential for hazardous situations that can arise, the FAA has recorded data detailing numerous instances of ultralight vehicles in controlled airspace causing near-miss situations with aircraft. The following examples highlight the problem:
(1) On March 24, 1981, an MU-2 flew between two ultralights operating off the end of the runway at Winter Haven, Florida. Both ultralights were equipped with floats and were operating at night without lights.
(2) On April 11, 1981, a Western Airlines 727 captain reported a near-miss with an ultralight vehicle in the vicinity of Phoenix, Sky Harbor Airport.
(3) In May of 1981, the pilot of a single engine aircraft reported a near-miss with an ultralight vehicle near Paso Robles, California. According to the report filed under the FAA Aviation Safety Reporting Program the ultralight was operating at 7,000 feet in IFR weather conditions. The airplane pilot, who was operating on an IFR flight plan, was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
To establish regulations to deter flights which present a serious danger to aircraft and to provide a basis for necessary enforcement action the FAA published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No 816 on July 27, 1981 (46 FR 38472). That Notice proposed to include both powered and unpowered hang gliders under the generic term "ultralight vehicle" and included proposed weight and fuel limitations for those vehicles. The Notice proposed a number of operational limitations for ultralight vehicles, while recognizing that the vehicles are used primarily for sport purposes. More than 2,500 persons and organizations submitted comments to that proposed rule. This rule is the result of FAA consideration of those comments in light of its responsibility for safety in the National Airspace System. Because of the growing significance of this segment of the aviation community, the new rules have been codified under a new Part of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 103.
Subpart A – General
Section 103.1 Applicability (proposed §101.1(a)(3)).
This section defines the term "ultralight vehicle," The proposed rule would have limited the term to single-occupant designs weighing less than 155 pounds, with a fuel capacity of 15 pounds or less, and which had no U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate. The final rule expands the definition to differentiate between powered and unpowered ultralight vehicles. The 155-pound weight limitation has been retained for unpowered designs and is the only criterion for those vehicles. Those ultralights equipped with powerplants must weigh less than 254 pounds empty weight. In addition, powered ultralight vehicles must have a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons and be incapable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight. The power off stall speed of a powered ultralight must not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
The rule restricts both powered and unpowered vehicles to single occupants and requires that the aircraft be used exclusively for sport or recreational purposes.
The FAA estimates that nearly all unpowered vehicles currently on the market will fall within the definition of ultralight vehicle. The new criteria will exclude approximately 7% of the powered vehicle designs currently being marketed as ultralights, although many of those may be suitable for modifications to bring them within the scope of the definition.
A number of commenters, including the United States Hang Gliding Association (USHGA), object to the inclusion of "pure" hang gliders in the same definition as powered hang gliders. They raise the point that there are a number of distinctive operational differences between a pure hang glider and a powered vehicle which should be considered when assessing the necessity for regulations for these vehicles. The USHGA emphasizes its own self-regulation program and safety record.
The FAA recognizes that the measures taken by the USHGA to promote safety at USHGA launch sites have been effective, particularly those measures taken to protect the participants. However, the basic rationale for issuance of this rule is the safety of all users of the national airspace, not just the ultralight operators. The great majority of hang gliding operations will not be affected by these regulations because as a number of commenters indicate, they are usually conducted in rural or remote areas, at low altitudes away from areas where safety of other persons in the air or on the ground is compromised. It is only in congested areas, airport traffic areas, and other areas frequented by aircraft involved in air commerce that the rules would restrict operations of unpowered ultralight vehicles.
The USHGA's self-regulation program lacks the legal authority to enforce requirements to ensure the safety of others. There is no requirement for any hang glider operator to be a member of the USHGA.
Current hang glider publications have carried a number of articles describing hang glider operations which violate Part 91 regulations as well as the recommendations of Advisory Circular No. 60 10. Those descriptions have included operations near and into clouds, low-altitude operations over open-air assemblies of persons, and flights in close proximity to airports with large concentrations of airline and general aviation aircraft operations. Those potentially hazardous operations created the requirement for Federal regulatory limitations on hang gliders.
The proposed maximum weight restriction of less than 155 pounds was retained for unpowered ultralight vehicles to:
(1) recognize the unpowered vehicles as a separate entity from those that are powered; and
(2) ensure that the unpowered vehicles continue to meet essentially the same criteria that prevented their being classified as conventional gliders.
Under this rule, those unpowered vehicles weighing 155 pounds or more must be certificated under the appropriate FAR's. No specific comments were received which objected to the 155-pound limitation on unpowered vehicles.
A large number of commenters request that the proposed maximum empty weight of 155 pounds be raised for powered ultralight vehicles. The suggestions range from 180 to 350 pounds. The reasons offered include greater structural integrity, more opportunity for design innovations, and the fact that many of the vehicles presently operated exhibit all of the other characteristics generally attributed to ultralights but weigh more than the proposed weight limit.
The FAA, by review of ultralight advertisements as of March 1982, has concluded that the empty weights of most of those vehicles range from 150 to 250 pounds. It was further concluded that the higher weights resulted from improvements which provide greater structural integrity, better stability, more positive controllability, and other safety-oriented additions which do not derogate the characteristics commonly associated with ultralight operations. Those characteristics are identified as low forward speeds, low wing loadings, low stall speeds, short takeoff and landing capability, and no enclosures around the pilot.
Some commenters suggest that limitations of 220 pounds or 330 pounds be adopted because they are "international standards." This is not correct. Canada, England, and Australia adopted 220 pounds as the maximum weight for a particular category of aircraft. In those countries, even if the weight limitation is met, the aircraft must be certificated and the pilots licensed. The 330-pound limit was established by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale for a category called "microlight aircraft." That category was established merely for the purpose of recording performance achievements of a particular group of aircraft.
The FAA agrees that the weight limitation for powered ultralight vehicles should be raised from the proposed 155 pounds. The 254pound limitation was established because it closely corresponds to commenters' recommendations that the weight limitation be raised to at least 115 kilos, and because the vast majority of current vehicles on the market weigh less than 254 pounds. This weight does not include floats or safety devices intended for deployment in an emergency situation, e.g., parachutes and the harnesses and ballistic package necessary for deployment.
A large number of commenters recognize that, if the weight were raised, some restriction would have to be imposed to ensure that the characteristics associated with ultralights would be preserved. Those commenters include organizations such as the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Professional Ultralight Manufacturers Association (PUMA).
The restrictions they propose range from simple wing loading values to complex aerodynamic formulas. They include maximum wing loading suggestions, minimum wing areas in relation to weight, maximum power capabilities in relation to weight, and calculations of launch mass. Some commenters suggest, and the FAA considered, that the pilot be required to be exposed fully to the relative wind. This requirement was dropped to accommodate cold weather operations and to avoid stifling design and efficiency improvements within the parameters of an ultralight vehicle.
The maximum forward airspeed limitation was selected by the FAA because it is faster than almost all ultralight vehicles currently being sold but still places those vehicles in a significantly slower performance category than conventional aircraft. The determination and enforcement of this speed limitation is within the capability and resources of the FAA under the inspection requirement of the rule.
A number of commenters suggest maximum stall speed restrictions ranging from 18 to 25 miles per hour, believing that this limitation would continue to ensure the safe nature of ultralight vehicles. The FAA believes that the ability of those vehicles to operate from surfaces other than those designed for aircraft is a factor which lessens the potential for collisions and reduces the interference with aircraft operations. A relatively slow stall speed is a major contributing factor in allowing ultralight pilots to operate in a safe manner.
A maximum power-off stall speed of 24 knots was chosen because it encompasses most of the vehicles currently on the market. The stall speed is easily determined through a simple calculation using information which is readily available to the FAA inspector when inspecting a specific vehicle. The total allowable fuel capacity was raised from the proposed 15 pounds to 5 U.S. gallons. The decision to increase the volume of fuel is a direct result of the desire by the FAA, in response to public comments, to ensure that adequate fuel reserves are available for safe flight.
The rule limits both powered and unpowered ultralight vehicles to a single occupant. A few commenters suggest that two-seat versions be available for carrying passengers or for training purposes. The basis for allowing ultralight vehicles to operate under special rules which do not require pilot and aircraft certification is the "sport" aspect of the operation.
For example, the assumption can be made that a person who elects, without pilot qualifications, to operate an uncertificated vehicle alone is fully aware of the risks involved. This assumption does not hold true of a passenger selected randomly from the general public. Persons in the general public will likely assume that the operator has certificated pilot qualifications.
Because pilot qualifications are not controlled or monitored, the single-occupant requirement is a necessary component in the continuation of the policies which allow the operation of ultralight vehicles free from many of the restrictions imposed on aircraft. Persons wishing to operate two place vehicles have the availability of existing provisions of the FAR's for conducting such operations.
Recent activities and advertisements in ultralight-oriented publications (included in the docket) imply that commercial operations may be conducted by an uncertificated pilot in an ultralight which has not been certificated as an aircraft. Those types of operations are not allowed under the rule.
Several commenters suggest that ultralight vehicles be limited to sport or recreational purposes only. The position of the FAA has consistently been that these vehicles may be operated for sport and recreation purposes only. The justification for allowing the operation of these vehicles without requiring aircraft and pilot certification has been that this activity is a "sport" generally conducted away from concentrations of population and aircraft operations. Like any sport, the participants are viewed as taking personal risks which do not affect others not involved in the activity.
Section 103.3 Inspection requirements (proposed §101.55)
This section ensures the FAA's authority to inspect ultralight vehicles for compliance with the limits specified in §103.1 and is retained in the final rule as proposed in Notice No. 81-6. A large number of commenters object to the inspection requirements, believing that considerable FAA manpower and resources would be required in this effort. The USHGA and its membership contributed a majority of the objecting comments, citing the remoteness of hang gliding sites as impractical for the FAA to monitor.
Given the current level of ultralight activity, the FAA is confident that enforcement of the provisions of Part 103 can be accomplished with the existing resources. As is the case today, many investigations of suspected violations are prompted by reports received from pilots, air traffic controllers, citizens, and other sources. The FAA foresees no appreciable increase in the number of these reports as a result of this rule.
Section 103.5 Waivers
In proposing to include ultralight operations under Part 101, ultralights would have been eligible for the waiver provisions applicable to all operations under that Part. By removing the ultralight proposal from Part 101, the waiver eligibility for ultralights would have been lost. The FAA has concluded that the ultralight industry and the public would be best served by retention of waiver eligibility for these vehicles.
Thus, §103.5 is added to the final rule, giving the ultralight operator the opportunity to apply for a certificate of waiver from any provisions of Part 103.
Section 103.7 Certification and registration
The intent of the FAA is to provide for safety in the national airspace with a minimum amount of regulation. Accordingly, those vehicles which meet the definition of "ultralight vehicle"' will be exempt from FAA certification and registration requirements. Similarly, pilots of ultralight vehicles, as defined in this Part, will not be required to possess FAA pilot certificates or airman medical certificates.
While this rule does not, at this time, require airman/aircraft certification or vehicle registration and is premised on the absolute minimum regulation necessary to ensure safety in the public interest, a continuation of burgeoning growth of the ultralight population could necessitate further regulation. The best practices and methods to preclude the need for further Federal regulation appear to at least include: self-regulation and self-policing, safety standards, membership in organizations and associations equipped to function and operate programs approved by the FAA, markings and identification of vehicles, programs including provisions similar to Federal Aviation Regulations relating to aircraft (both operation and airworthiness), etc.
FAA will continue to monitor performance of the ultralight community in terms of safety statistics, growth trends and maturity and, if indicated, will take additional regulatory actions to preclude degradation of safety to the general public while allowing maximum freedom for ultralight operations. In summary, it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self regulation in these areas.
A large number of commenters believe that there should be some requirement that pilots of ultralights be required to exhibit some knowledge and/or experience before being allowed to operate these vehicles. The suggestions range from no requirements to pilot certification under the requirements of Part 61. The general groupings of the comments are: (1) No certification; (2) required ground training on regulations and conventional aircraft operations; (3) required ground training and instructor sign-off for unsupervised solo operations: (4) successful passage of a written test, such as the FAA glider pilot written examination; (5) issuance of an Ultralight Pilot Certificate by the FAA based on satisfactory completion of a examination, and observed performance as the pilot of an ultralight; and (6) conforming to the certification requirements of Part 61 for student and private pilots.
The FAA endorses the ultralight community's efforts to develop and administer, under FAA guidelines, a national pilot certification program. At this time, however, pilots of ultralight vehicles are not required by Federal regulation to be certificated.
Some commenters, primarily State and local governments, recommend that these vehicles be registered and be required to display their registration number. The reasons center around identification of any offenders. The FAA's experience in identification of offenders and processing enforcement action validates their recommendations. The FAA endorses the ultralight community's efforts to develop and maintain, under FAA guidelines, a national registration system which would be immediately accessible to the FAA. However, registration of ultralight vehicles will not be required by Federal regulation at this time.
There are a small number of commenters who recommend additional Federal regulations requiring certification of ultralight vehicles to some design standards. The FAA has consistently refrained from the certification of these vehicles because they were occupied by a single occupant for sport or recreational purposes. This policy is in accord with Federal regulatory policies regarding other sport activities. The pilots of these vehicles accept the responsibility for assuring their personal safety much as the driver of a moped street vehicle or a scuba diver does when engaged in his sport. The FAA has noted and commends the efforts of the USHGA to establish design standards and flight testing of new hang glider designs. The FAA endorses the development of similar standards and testing of new powered designs by the ultralight community. However, the FAA presently has no intent to require certification of these vehicles by Federal regulation.
This section prohibits any ultralight operator from engaging in activity which jeopardizes the safety of persons or property on the ground or in the air. The prohibition against hazardous flight or dropping of objects is common to the regulations pertaining to civil aircraft, and the FAA is addressing ultralight operations with equivalent stringency.
Section 103.11 Daylight operations (proposed §101.43).
The proposed rule would have limited the operation of ultralights to the hours between official sunrise and official sunset. The limitation on daytime operations was retained with an added provision for twilight operations under certain conditions. Other night-time operations are not allowed.
A large number of commenters request that flight during the twilight periods of the day be allowed since those are prime times to conduct ultralight operations. They state that meteorological conditions are often best during those periods and are characterized by a lack of wind and turbulence. The AOPA believes that calm air is particularly important for the novice flyer and provides an increased safety factor, especially during training when confidence building is essential. Many commenters believe that the available light is generally adequate to allow operations during these periods and that other craft could be safely avoided.
There are some commenters who believe that operations in Alaska should be excluded from the daylight operations section. They allude to the uniqueness of their "normal" day and how ultralight operations would be adversely affected.
Several comments support the original proposal and do not want operations during the nighttime hours. The primary concern centers around the difficulty in seeing these vehicles, especially at the higher altitudes, and the perceived inability of these operations to be conducted safely. The FAA has observed ultralight operations during the twilight periods and has found the light available for such operations to be adequate in many instances. Operators were able to maneuver safely to avoid each other and also effect safe takeoffs and landings. Since most vehicles are operated at nearly the same altitude, they could be easily seen silhouetted against the lighted sky. Operations were conducted in relatively close proximity to each other, and each operator was readily aware of the others' presence. The mild weather conditions which generally prevailed during the twilight periods combined with the controllability and maneuverability of these vehicles to enhance the safety factor for flight.
The FAA is concerned, however. that unlimited operations of this type could pose a threat to aircraft which operate at higher speeds and higher altitudes. The number of potential encounters between aircraft and ultralights increases significantly as ultralights operate into areas normally traversed by certificated aircraft. Also, the ability of aircraft pilots descending into the lower altitudes to see ultralights would be minimal due to the darkened backdrop of the ground. Pilots would often not be aware of such operations taking place and could easily overrun an ultralight without ever having visual contact.
The FAA has adopted an alternative which provides an acceptable level of safety to aircraft while still allowing ultralights to operate in uncontrolled airspace during this period of the day. The FAA's conclusion on this issue is to disallow ultralight operations in controlled airspace during the period from sunset to sunrise. This affords aircraft operators the margin of safety to which they are entitled and, at the same time, leaves adequate airspace to the ultralight operator during a 30-minute twilight period.
The FAA has determined that the occasional aircraft operation in uncontrolled airspace during the twilight period should not entirely preclude ultralight operations. The visibility from above of ultralights operating at very low levels can be significantly enhanced by the addition of an anticollision light on these vehicles. Such a light would provide the descending aircraft pilot with a distinct indication of the ultralight's presence. Additionally, it would enable ultralight operators to better see and avoid each other.
For the purposes of ultralight operation, an anticollision light is defined as any flashing or stroboscopic device that is of sufficient intensity so as to be visible for at least 3 statute miles. This regulatory approach does not impose on the ultralight owner the economic burden associated with a certificated lighting system. The ultralight must remain in uncontrolled airspace, and the anti-collision light must be operating during the twilight periods whenever the vehicle is in motion. With respect to twilight operations in Alaska, the FAA recognizes that the periods of twilight are significantly different from those experienced in the lower latitudes. A review of the Air Almanac reveals that, in the upper latitudes, some days have no daylight periods but have over 4 hours of civil twilight. Civil twilight is defined as the period between official sunset and sunrise when the sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon.
Regulations currently exist in Parts 91 and 101 which acknowledge the need to give special allowances for operations in Alaska after sunset, and the FAA has determined that ultralights are entitled to the same consideration. Therefore, a provision to permit ultralight operations in Alaska during civil twilight has been added § 103.11. The requirement to have an operating anticollision light during twilight operations is applicable to operations during this period in Alaska.
Section 103.13 Operations near aircraft and other ultralight vehicles (proposed § 101.49)
The proposed regulations with respect to ultralight vehicle right-of-way are adopted. An additional provision is added to clarify the right-of-way requirements in situations involving powered and unpowered ultralight vehicles.
The comments regarding right-of-way range from those who believe that unpowered ultralight vehicles should have the right-of-way over all other vehicles and aircraft to those who believe that the requirements of § 91.67 should be adopted, with unpowered ultralights being grouped with gliders and the powered ultralights grouped with airplanes. The most salient reasons cited include lack of maneuvering ability and inability to change location in the air quickly.
The suggestions and associated rationale do not reveal any areas which had not been considered during the formulation of the NPRM. The FAA has determined that uncertificated sport operations should not be given the right-of-way over all other aircraft. The small size and sport nature of the operations is a major factor in that determination it is unlikely that the pilot of aircraft will be able to see the ultralight vehicle as readily as the pilot of the ultralight vehicle will be able to see or hear the larger aircraft. Due to the forward speeds of the majority of aircraft, it may be impossible for the aircraft to make sudden changes of direction required to avoid small objects sighted at close quarters. The FAA recommends that operators engaged in ultralight operations avoid, if possible, areas where significant operations of aircraft are occurring so as to minimize the risk of midair collisions.
Some ultralight operators express concern that, if they are not given the right-of-way over aircraft, the pilots of those aircraft might deliberately fly in close proximity to the ultralights. In situations where this act can be substantiated, an investigation will be initiated to determine whether the pilot of the conventional aircraft operated in a careless or reckless manner in violation of § 91.9.
Some commenters recommend the establishment of areas where ultralight operations could be conducted and all aircraft operations would be prohibited. While the FAA has undertaken to identify locations on aeronautical charts where a specialized aeronautical activity, such as parachute jumping or gliding, is being conducted, no action is anticipated which would restrict other types of aeronautical activities in those areas and, similarly, no such action is contemplated for ultralights.
Section 103.15 Operations over congested areas (proposed §101.47).
The proposed prohibition of ultralight vehicle operations over congested areas is retained in the final rule. The comments favoring an easing of the proposed rule focus on three main areas: (1) Those who favor permitting operations with a minimum altitude ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 feet AGL; (2) those requesting that the minimum altitude requirements of §91.79 be allowed: and (3) those who believe that no minimum altitude should be specified, especially for unpowered vehicles, due to the short field ability and small size of the vehicles.
The representatives of cities and towns who commented generally favor the prohibition, believing that uncertificated aviation activities have no place over congested areas.
The FAA's position is based on the fact that ultralight vehicles are not certificated as airworthy by any approved method and are flown by uncertificated pilots for sport or recreational purposes only. Similar limitations apply to the operations of experimental and restricted category aircraft based on catastrophic incidents which have occurred in the past. The potential for such an incident makes the general issuance of the suggested authorization unacceptable. The FAA believes that concentrations of the general public must be protected from the possible dangers inherent in the operations of vehicles of uncertificated, possibly unproven designs. In specific limited instances, with appropriate operational limitations, ultralight operations may be approved over congested areas, through the waiver provisions of §103.5.
Section 103.17 Operations in certain airspace (proposed §101.45).
The NPRM proposed to require the ultralight operator to obtain authorization prior to operating within airport traffic areas, control zones, terminal control areas, and positive controlled airspace.
Operators of aircraft commented that the speed and visibility of ultralights are incompatible with other operations and that they should not be allowed at all in those areas. Some even suggest that a maximum operating altitude, such as 3,000 feet AGL, be imposed on all ultralight operations. The FAA shares the concern expressed by pilots who are wary of the ability to intermix faster aircraft safely with the relatively slow ultralights; but, experience has shown that aircraft of significantly different performance characteristics can be accommodated when operations are conducted in accordance with specific authorizations. There is considerable precedence in the form of glider operations, hot air ballooning. and parachuting being conducted while aircraft safely transit the area. Historically, the greatest danger comes not from performance variables, but from operations unknown to the pilot or controller. The requirement to gain authorization before entering these airspace areas enhances the safety to all airspace users. The FAA has concluded that ultralight vehicles in compliance with the provisions of 103.17 will be able to operate safely in those airspace areas.
Although the subject was not addressed in the NPRM, some commenters voice concern about ultralight operations conducted at or near uncontrolled airports, with many persons noting a need to develop standard operating procedures. The FAA agrees with the need to establish a compatible method of operation at uncontrolled airports but believes that the variables associated with each locality (terrain, runway configuration, and the physical properties of the airport combine in such a manner to preclude a generalized nationwide regulatory approach. The FAA has concluded that such operations could be handled much more efficiently by airport managers developing local procedures in concert with the ultralight community. In this way the available facilities can be used to the full extent while operational safety is maintained. Additionally. the interaction of the ultralight operators and the airport managers will serve as a basis for mutual understanding of the role this growing segment of aviation will play in the years ahead. The FAA encourages and supports efforts to reach such agreements and has been working with user groups in the development of guidelines for ultralight operations at uncontrolled airports.
Section 103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas.
In the NPRM, requirements for operations of ultralights were included under the provisions of §101.5. In the final rule, the requirement for ultralight operators to obtain authorization prior to operating in prohibited or restricted areas is retained and restated under §103.19. Prohibited areas have been developed to provide for the safety and security of operations being conducted and to segregate activities considered to be hazardous to non-participating aircraft. Such operations in these areas include military and presidential security, flight training and testing, experimental weapons testing, and the launch and recovery of rocket-powered vehicles.
Many commenters recognize the need to limit access to these operating areas and accept the requirement to obtain permission prior to operating in these areas. A few commenters believe that this restriction should not apply to them and that ultralight vehicles should be allowed to operate at their own risk.
The FAA has determined that allowing any aeronautical activity to enter prohibited or restricted areas without prior authorization would derogate the purpose for which these areas were established. Avoidance of such areas by ultralight operators is not viewed as imposing a significant burden on ultralight operations .
Section 103.21 Visual reference to the surface (proposed §101.51).
NPRM No. 81 – 6 proposed that ultralight operators be required to maintain visual reference to the surface during all flight operations. This would ensure that the operator of an ultralight would have the opportunity to descend and land safely at any time without entering obscuring weather phenomena. Many commenters support the proposal as reasonable and representative of normal ultralight operations. They recognize the possibility of being caught "on top" and the danger, both to themselves and to other airspace users, of trying to descend through a layer of clouds. A few commenters believe that visual reference to the surface is necessary only while climbing or descending and not while in level flight.
The FAA has determined that visual reference with the surface is necessary at all times. Experience with certificated aircraft has shown that many pilots, with fully instrumented aircraft, have been caught "on top" and have required assistance from Air Traffic Control to descend safely. Flying "on top" or between cloud layers often presents visual illusions which cannot be verified without instrumentation. The effect of these illusions is to disorient the airman spatially, with a resulting loss of control of the aircraft. It takes a well-trained and disciplined pilot to ignore what information the human senses are providing and rely on the instrumentation aboard the aircraft.
In the case of ultralights, there is relatively little, if any, instrumentation with which to confirm the flight attitude of the vehicle. Further, if the ultralight operator should get caught "on top" there is no alternative available but to descend unannounced through the clouds. The ultralight operator would be risking not only his own life, but the lives of persons who rely on the safeguards inherent in certificated aviation.
The FAA has determined that inclusion in the final rule of the requirement to maintain visual reference with the surface is necessary to reduce the potential for collisions and ensure the safe operation of ultralight vehicles.
The flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements proposed in the NPRM are the same as those under §91.105, the basic minimums for VFR flight operations by fixed-wing aircraft. Since ultralight vehicles will be sharing the same airspace, the FAA has determined it is practical to apply the same operating minimums.
Many commenters to this proposal are receptive to the similarity in visibility requirements for all airspace users. Many ultralight operators indicate an appreciation for the inherent safety in being able to see and avoid obstructions and other aeronautical activities. Establishment of specific visibility standards is viewed as enhancing the legitimacy and the utility of ultralight operations.
Some commenters believed that the distance from clouds should be reduced to "clear of clouds." Their basis for such a change centers around the difficulty in determining actual distances from clouds.
Other commenters suggest that hang gliders be allowed to continue their practice of operating near and in the base of clouds. Their rationale is based on the added lift available from being in close proximity to cumulous clouds. Some hang glider operators fear that the restriction on in-cloud operations would eliminate their ability to vie for long-distance and high-altitude records. The FAA cannot support the operation of ultralights in or near clouds. A specific distance from clouds is required when operating in controlled airspace, primarily due to the presents of aircraft conducting instrument flight operations through the clouds. The cloud clearance requirements serve as a practical buffer to reduce the possibility of having an aircraft exit the clouds on an unalterable collision course. Operations too close to clouds does, in effect, cause a blind side in the aviator's vision. Operation in and near clouds severely restricts the ultralight operator's ability to see and avoid, an ability that is paramount in allowing ultralight operations to take place.
In maintaining a safe distance from clouds, the FAA has concluded that Ultralight operators can reasonably approximate, when operations are being conducted, the required distance from clouds. Experience with other segments of aviation has shown that it is readily apparent that, when operations approach an unsafe distance from clouds and adherence to the prescribed minimum distance determination becomes relatively easy. Therefore, retention of the flight visibility and clouds clearance requirements, as proposed, is essential for maintaining airspace safety.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Chapter 1) are amended, effective October 4, 1982, by adding to Subchapter F (14 CFR Chapter 1) a new Part 103. (Secs. 307,313(a), 601(a), 602 and 603, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1354(a), 1421(a), 1422, and 1423; sec. 6(c), Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 1655(c)).
NOTE: The FAA has determined that this regulation is not a major rule under executive Order 12291. Because the rule will regulate a new user segment and because of substantial public interest, it has been determined that it is a significant rule pursuant to the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The total projected costs of this rule may be found in a copy of the regulatory evaluation contained in the public docket. A copy of that evaluation may be obtained by contacting the person identified above under the caption "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT." It is certified under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are very few small entities involved in ultralight vehicle activities and the majority of those will be unaffected by the implementation of this rule.


text:
All Around Home Care LLC
Air Duct Cleaning Experts Cape Coral, FL
All Around Home Care LLC, Cape Coral, Florida is a father-son team that takes care of dryer vents. We've been providing dryer vent services to the area for fourteen years. We provide excellent workmanship and complete customer satisfaction from the start to the completion of each project. We do dryer vent cleaning, dryer vent repair and installation, inspections. Our reputation is based on service, safety and quality, regardless of how large or small the job. We guarantee every job! We also offer roof cleaning, pressure washing, and soft washing.
Cape Coral is a city located in Lee County, Florida, United States, on the Gulf of Mexico. Founded in 1957 and developed as a planned community, the city's population has grown to 194,016 as of the 2020 Census, a rise of 26% from the 2010 Census, making it the 117th most populous city in the United States. With an area of 120 square miles (310 km2), Cape Coral is the largest city between Tampa and Miami in both population and area. It is the largest and principal city in the Cape Coral – Fort Myers, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area. The city has over 400 mi (640 km) of navigable waterways, more than any other city on earth.
Bella Vida at Entrada, Belle Meade, Belle Vue, Botanica Lakes, Bright Water, Brookhill, Buckeye Lawn and Landscape, Burnt Store, Caloosa Shores, Caloosahatchee


text:
Worried about getting scammed on an Internet auction? "Just use an escrow service," is the customary advice. Not so fast. The latest auction scam is an elaborate swindle involving creation of fake escrow services, complete with convincing Web sites like www.escrow-is.com. Auction watchdogs are trying to shut the Web sites down as soon as they pop up, but several victims have already been bilked out of thousands of dollars.
Alan Schultz thought that $900 was suspiciously cheap for the laptop computer he won June 2 on Yahoo.com's auction site. But the seller offered to take payment through an escrow service, thought to be the safest way to transact business online. Escrow companies act as a third-party referee, taking payment from buyers but not releasing the money to sellers until the goods are delivered. So Schultz felt a little better about the deal. And more important, Schultz said, he was in a hurry. The 21-year-old Virginia Tech senior studies full-time and holds down two part-time jobs; he didn't have time to be overly skeptical.
"And I had several presentations coming up, and I needed the laptop bad," Schultz said. "I needed to be able to carry my work with me."
So he filled out the Web form for the escrow service, then followed instructions and went to the bank to wire the funds. The money was headed for a bank in Greece, he said, which in hindsight should have given him pause. But, he needed the computer.
Reassuring e-mails from the seller kept coming for a few days, but by June 12, the seller was gone, and so was the money.
"Being in college losing $900 really sucks," he said.
Scam artists getting smarter
Internet auction scam artists are becoming more clever, trying to stay one step ahead of potential victims, who are starting to recognize basic attempts at thievery, according to auction site watchdog Rosalinda Baldwin, CEO of The Auction Guild.
"As the public becomes more aware, con artists modify what they do to overcome that resistance," she said.
Last week, MSNBC.com reported on a scam that tricked auction winners into sending money to the criminals directly through Western Union.
Creation of fake Web sites to reassure skeptical auction winners is apparently the latest twist. And it's not just fake escrow sites — other scamsters have taken to creating fake shipping sites.
Nicholas Berardi paid $1,000 to a scam artist for an IBM laptop after he received an e-mail that appeared to prove the laptop had been shipped. The criminal sent a link to www.klm-express.com and a tracking number.
"The scammers went as far as to update it everyday and after I saw that it went as far as the U.K., I sent the Western Union Number, thinking that it would still be moving," Berardi said. "But as soon as I sent the number it stopped moving. I instantly knew that it was a fraud, and a closer looking at the site I realized that half the links didn't work."
While klm-express.com was no longer in operation when visited by MSNBC.com, another fake shipping site, PromptExpress.com, had sprung up. E-mails to the site's contact addresses went unanswered.
But fake escrow sites seem much more common — so common, in fact, that legitimate escrow services like GoldenEscrow.com are starting to feel the pinch. A faked escrow site using a very similar address, Golden-Escrow.com, can confuse consumers, the company says. A pop-up box on Golden Escrow, Inc.'s Web site warns consumers about the suspicious sound-alike service, and tells visitors the firm "has contacted the proper authorities to further investigate this matter."
Attempts to contact Golden-Escrow.com weren't successful. The site doesn't include any contact information, and its domain registration information was unavailable when MSNBC.com tried to access it.
The site does include prominent mention of fraud; "Your Security Matters To Us," it claims atop its home page. "As a member of Golden-escrow.com, you can file complaints against other users you have engaged in transactions with. Every complaint you file is sent to the IFCC (Internet Fraud Complaint Center — an FBI program) directly."
But Michael Carr, a self-appointed auction watchdog, says several sellers who urged auction winners to use Golden-Escrow.com have since been suspended. Carr said the site's original domain information indicated it was registered in Puerto Rico, despite the site's claim of an Ohio address. Carr also chatted online with the Web site's "live support" and was given a bogus phone number and bonding company contact information.
Tao Wang, a 21-year-old fake escrow victim from Champagne, Illinois, has so far found little comfort from authorities after he was scammed. Wang tried to buy four laptops for $3,200, also wiring the money to Escrow-is.com in early June. His bank is trying to recover the money, but he's not optimistic.
"They said wire transfer was secure enough, that they would know exactly where the money goes. I don't know why they said that," Wang said. "It has been 2 weeks now....I think this guy took a lot of money from other people."
Many suspicious sites
While Escrow-is.com has been shut down, several other escrow services advertising on the Internet raise suspicion.
A site called Xchange-escrow.com boasts phone numbers in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., but no one answers at any of those numbers. E-mail sent to the site's contacts, and its domain registration contacts, went unanswered. Bad grammar, often a scam tip-off, was apparent. In the site's corporate background section, after a lengthy discussion of the founder's career, the passage concludes "This is how Xchange Escrow was borned."
E-mail sent to a site named Share-escrow.com went unanswered, too. The site doesn't appear to be operating now, but according to site visitor statistics left visible at the Web address, over 3,000 user clicked there during June.
Bestescrow.net and g4escrow.com, two nearly identical sites, are also suspicious. The telephone number listed in g4escrow.com domain registration had been disconnected, and e-mails sent to both went unanswered. Both sites' terms and conditions, appear to be copied directly from Escrow.com, a legitimate escrow service. Left in the conditions is Escrow.com's mailing address.
What to loot out for
One sign for suspicious consumers to look for: if the auction seller insists exclusively on an using an escrow service. If the escrow service and the seller appear to be working closely together — one victim got instructions on how to send money to the escrow company from the seller's e-mail address — that's also a bad sign,
And wiring money to a bank outside the country is always a bad idea.
Many of the auction sellers pointing potential victims toward fake escrow sites use Yahoo's service. The company did not make a spokesperson available for comment, but offered an e-mail statement.
"While Yahoo! Auctions does not endorse any particular escrow service, we do, as part of our safety guidelines, recommend that buyers and sellers consider using an escrow service to protect their interests. ... we would encourage buyers to educate themselves about companies they may be considering conducting business with, whether through the Better Business Bureau or through referrals from trusted sellers on Yahoo! Auctions."


text:
SXSW runs its music showcases like a tight ship. Some sets run over, but they generally keep to schedule.
So when I had already spent 20 minutes waiting for Das Racist to begin its set last night at Buffalo Billiards, I felt pretty annoyed when the onstage technician called to the sound booth that we were "just waiting for the band."
But the hip-hop duo -- Victor Vazquez and Himanshu Suri, joined by "hype man" Ashok Kondabolu -- had no trouble melting my annoyance. Vazquez squeezed right by me to make his way onstage, then asked the guy next to me to grab him a tequila and grapefruit from the bar and was genuinely grateful when two were delivered to him.
Das Racist has all the charisma and energy of a boy band with none of the choreography. It replaces it with a self-awareness that dials right into taste of the slightly nerdy, mostly white hipster crowd that waited 25 minutes to hear a song about the combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.
I imagined most of them were somewhat like me: university-educated, suburban-raised, blog-reading Obama voters without much semblance of actual culture to identify with. Many of us may really like hip-hop, but can't really say it's about us or our personal experience.
Until someone raps a line about the combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. Then we forward it to our friends on the Internet and smile knowingly over our coffees when Death and Taxes magazine calls it "an existential meditation on consumer identity in corporate America."
At one point, Queens-born Suri called out, "We're from a little band called Vampire Weekend," which got a big laugh from Vasquez -- but an even bigger one from the crowd. Because opposite as Das Racist is from the Columbia University pop band that rose to fame at the same time, everyone there probably was a Vampire Weekend fan. And we laughed because we all knew it.
The latest news from around North Texas.
If there's one thing Das Racist delivers, it's irony. And you can dance to it.